In the US, should the electoral college be eliminated?

[Sam Or I]

Why or why not?

[Natorgator]

Personally, I say no. If you look at the areas of the country that voted Democratic in the past election, they are centered around major cities - NYC, Los Angeles, and the like. If you did away with all of those, then campaigns wouldn't even bother with the smaller states and would merely campaign in the larger cities where the voting counts. To me, it ensures that the little guy in the small town has a vote that counts.

[LadyTevar]

Why or why not?

No, it should not be eliminated. It's a decent system, and is easier than counting the several million ballots that would come from all over the country.

What *SHOULD* be changed is how many states use their electorial college to vote as a Block. (ie, all 5 of WV's votes goes to the candidate that received the majority of the popular vote.)

This means that the 10-49% who voted for the other candidate have been muzzled, their opinion disregarded, their right to support their chosen candidate stolen away. This is Wrong!

[RedImperator]

The electoral college should be reformed, but not abolished. It's klunky, but it gives small states a voice in the process that they otherwise shouldn't have. What should go is winner-takes-all voting, and instead electoral votes should be parceled out by Congressional district (plus two to the statewide winner).

[Sir Sirius]

Doesn't the electoral college system sort of violate the "One man, one vote" principle where everyone's vote should carry equal weight?

[RedImperator]

Doesn't the electoral college system sort of violate the "One man, one vote" principle where everyone's vote should carry equal weight?

Yes, but one-man/one-vote is hardly a sacrosanct principle. The U.S. Senate has been violating it since the 17th Amendment was passed (when Senators became directly elected by their constitutents). And alotting the votes by Congressional district would largely eliminate that problem anyway, since by law those distrcits must be as close to equal size as possible.

[Joe]

No, no, a thousand times no.

[kojikun]

Yes, it should. Democracy is meant to give an equal say to the people, not an advantage to those who happen to live in less populus areas, etc. Majority vote is what matters, thats democracy. Too bad for the people in suburbia if they get screwed over, more people would have been otherwise.

[LadyTevar]

Yes, it should. Democracy is meant to give an equal say to the people, not an advantage to those who happen to live in less populus areas, etc. Majority vote is what matters, thats democracy. Too bad for the people in suburbia if they get screwed over, more people would have been otherwise.

So, Koji, do you live in a large urban area? Did you vote in your last election?

[Stormbringer]

Yes, it should. Democracy is meant to give an equal say to the people, not an advantage to those who happen to live in less populus areas, etc. Majority vote is what matters, thats democracy. Too bad for the people in suburbia if they get screwed over, more people would have been otherwise.

And how is it giving an advantage to those in rural areas again? And the people do have an equal say in who they elect, they just forget it's for the electoral college representative, not the president.

Any way, I agree with RedImperator and Lady Tevar that a proportional system for electoral votes would be far fairer and give more voices to opposition. Hopefully it will break some of the "solid state" problems and actually give third party candidates a chance to make something of themselves.

[Cosmic Average]

Yes, it should be done away with. It's an amazingly stupid system.

It won't be abolished, though, because it favors does currently in power(Dems and Repubs).

[Patrick Degan]

Personally, I say no. If you look at the areas of the country that voted Democratic in the past election, they are centered around major cities - NYC, Los Angeles, and the like. If you did away with all of those, then campaigns wouldn't even bother with the smaller states and would merely campaign in the larger cities where the voting counts. To me, it ensures that the little guy in the small town has a vote that counts.

That is not necesarily a given. The past three presidentisl elections have either been a plurality (1992, 1996) or very close percentage-wise (2000). In an election where there is no definitive leader in the polls, the votes from smaller states and rural counties would loom large and would be worth serious campagining for.

However, the purpose of the Electoral College is bound up with the national/state balance of power compromises and is not something to be cavilerly abandoned. A system of proportional allocation of electoral votes might be fairer than winner-take-all (and Maine has this system). But as it is the states which control these matters, it would be necessary either to campaign for the remaining 49 to switch to proportional electoral voting or amend the constitution.

[EmperorSolo51]

Yes, it should be done away with. It's an amazingly stupid system.

It won't be abolished, though, because it favors does currently in power(Dems and Repubs).

How is it stupid? It forces the candidates to campaign across the nation instead of going to the more populous states. If we were to abolish the system. My home state of NH would be virtually ignored.

[Chardok]

Doing away with the college and going to a one man-one vote system is the purest form of democracy, yes? But I hear the arguments for the EC, and they make sense...reform...reformreformreform.

Then again, one could argue that with the pervasion of WWW access to almost anyone, one could learn all about all the candidates without said candidates actually campaigning in the smaller ares. but first, we need somewhere unbiased to post all the candidates view, agendas, whatnot...FOX NEWS! *Stifled laughter* anyway, seriously, maybe in the far distant future we can slide into a one man/one vote system, but for now, and the forseeable future the EC is here to stay, yes?

[Chardok]

EDIT_______________

Pervaision=Pervasiveness. I think.

[Sea Skimmer]

Its worked for a couple hundred years, I see no reason to change it.

[Cyborg Stan]

No. While the exact implemenation can be changed, the electoral system on this scale gives more power to individual voters. (Because an individual person has a much greater chance of turning an election if it's smaller election.) It's a check against extremism and mob mentality (since they can be contained in smaller areas) and helps ensure that different groups of people are appealed to (running a country requires alot of different groups working together), not just the majority.

More about this here : Math Against Tyranny

Note for people advocating direct-vote systems, or saying that the electoral system is "Undemocratic" - believe it or not, the idea of democracy being the ideal system is not an given thing. (The ideal system for most people seems to be the improbable 'Benovolent Dictatorship'.) Democracy works on the principle that the majority of the people can state the needs of the country better than a small elite that vote for their own needs. However, scenarios such ones dealing with '51 wolves vs 49 sheep' demonstrate that the majority doesn't need to keep the needs of the rest of the people in mind. And in order to run a country, you require the input of different groups of people, doing different things - which an electoral college system is better at.

[Perinquus]

Yes, it should. Democracy is meant to give an equal say to the people, not an advantage to those who happen to live in less populus areas, etc. Majority vote is what matters, thats democracy. Too bad for the people in suburbia if they get screwed over, more people would have been otherwise.

What you have apparently forgotten is that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. There is a difference. Almost all of the founding fathers were deeply suspicious of pure democracy, considering that it merely replaced the tyranny of a despot with the tyranny of a mob. Thomas Jefferson put the thought into words thus:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

The founding fathers deliberately avoided true democracy, and set up a republic with democratic principles, so that the will of the majority would generally prevail, but the rights of the minority would be safeguarded. I think this is an eminently sensible setup, and I think their suspicions of puer democracy were generally well-founded.

[Howedar]

Yes, but one-man/one-vote is hardly a sacrosanct principle. The U.S. Senate has been violating it since the 17th Amendment was passed (when Senators became directly elected by their constitutents). And alotting the votes by Congressional district would largely eliminate that problem anyway, since by law those distrcits must be as close to equal size as possible.

I would support that system.

[Alyeska]

Personally, I say no. If you look at the areas of the country that voted Democratic in the past election, they are centered around major cities - NYC, Los Angeles, and the like. If you did away with all of those, then campaigns wouldn't even bother with the smaller states and would merely campaign in the larger cities where the voting counts. To me, it ensures that the little guy in the small town has a vote that counts.

Bullshit. Without the electoral college EVERY vote counts. Last election my vote was MEANINGLESS and did not go anywhere. I get sick and fucking tired of the old line saying the small states get over representation. Fucking bullshit. Montana voted all 3 of its votes for GWB and I didn't fucking vote for that dumbass. Not to mention nearly half the population didn't vote GWB.

The simple fact that twice in the last century two presidential canadites LOST even when they won the popular vote proves how the system is flawed.

[Alyeska]

Yes, it should be done away with. It's an amazingly stupid system.

It won't be abolished, though, because it favors does currently in power(Dems and Repubs).

How is it stupid? It forces the candidates to campaign across the nation instead of going to the more populous states. If we were to abolish the system. My home state of NH would be virtually ignored.

On the contrary. Instead of being able to concentrate on a key few states or cities, a president MUST go out and get every vote. Right now the small states are WORTHLESS. Presidents fucking ignore the 3 vote states because they are going after Florida, California, Texas, New York, etc...

[Shinova]

On the contrary. Instead of being able to concentrate on a key few states or cities, a president MUST go out and get every vote. Right now the small states are WORTHLESS. Presidents fucking ignore the 3 vote states because they are going after Florida, California, Texas, New York, etc...

Wouldn't removing the electoral college still do the same thing? Have candidates go to states with high population stilll?

[Joe]

Yes, it should be done away with. It's an amazingly stupid system.

It won't be abolished, though, because it favors does currently in power(Dems and Repubs).

How is it stupid? It forces the candidates to campaign across the nation instead of going to the more populous states. If we were to abolish the system. My home state of NH would be virtually ignored.

On the contrary. Instead of being able to concentrate on a key few states or cities, a president MUST go out and get every vote. Right now the small states are WORTHLESS. Presidents fucking ignore the 3 vote states because they are going after Florida, California, Texas, New York, etc...

And you think instating a direct popular election would make this better? Under a direct popular election, a candidate could carry the 9 most populous states to victory, completely to the exclusion of the smaller states like your Montana.

There's also other advantages to continuing to have the EC in place; less voter fraud, gives the only national election we have a more federalist character, but we've had this discussion before.

[Alyeska]

How is it stupid? It forces the candidates to campaign across the nation instead of going to the more populous states. If we were to abolish the system. My home state of NH would be virtually ignored.

On the contrary. Instead of being able to concentrate on a key few states or cities, a president MUST go out and get every vote. Right now the small states are WORTHLESS. Presidents fucking ignore the 3 vote states because they are going after Florida, California, Texas, New York, etc...

And you think instating a direct popular election would make this better? Under a direct popular election, a candidate could carry the 9 most populous states to victory, completely to the exclusion of the smaller states like your Montana.

There's also other advantages to continuing to have the EC in place; less voter fraud, gives the only national election we have a more federalist character, but we've had this discussion before.

Are you blind? Under direct popular election a canadite does NOT carry the 9 most populous states. He ONLY carries those who vote for him instead of the whole fucking state. This means that the canadite must campaign in as many population centers as possible (even small ones) to get more votes.

And the voter fraud issue is a red herring. There is equal chance at it for both types of elections.

[kojikun]

So, Koji, do you live in a large urban area? Did you vote in your last election?

I live in whats called the Miami-Fort Lauderdale Metropolitan area, which is a huge unending metro area filled entirely with houses. I don't think theres more then 5 million people in the 300 square miles or so that make up the place. So no, I don't live in a large urban area, I think its more a large suburban area. And no, I didn't vote in the last election, because I'm 17.